JAI KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The appellant, in the present case, is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 20.08.2016 passed by the learned Writ Court holding that because the petitioner worked in the work charge establishment and retired in that capacity without being confirmed in the permanent establishment, he cannot be treated as a permanent employee under the State and hence the Writ Court refused to issue a direction commanding the respondents to pay pension and other retiral dues etc. to the petitioner which are otherwise available to a regular employee of the State.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has heavily relied upon Section 59 of the PWD Code and submits that a work charge establishment broadly means a staff of the establishment of which the expenses including the wages and allowances are chargeable to the work.